Techdirt. Stories filed under "disputes"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "disputes"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:42:45 PDTYes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold CustomersMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140605/17510527490/yes-verizon-is-fault-netflix-dispute-its-not-delivering-what-it-sold-customers.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140605/17510527490/yes-verizon-is-fault-netflix-dispute-its-not-delivering-what-it-sold-customers.shtmlNetflix/Verizon dispute over who's to blame for poor quality movie streaming. Netflix has chosen to pin the blame on the ISPs when there's network congestion, while Verizon angrily hit back at this "PR stunt," claiming that it was actually Netflix's fault for not doing a better job routing its traffic. Except... that's not true. As we've been pointing out for the better part of a decade, this is all about the broadband companies trying to double charge. Tim Lee, over at Vox, summarizes the point nicely:

Verizon's customers have paid Verizon for the service of delivering content to them. But rather than simply performing the service Verizon's customers have paid it to perform, Verizon sees an opportunity to get paid twice: in addition to charging its own customers for connectivity, Verizon hopes to also charge Netflix to deliver its content to those customers.

Verizon is effectively using its own customers' poor experience as leverage. Verizon has been threatening Netflix that if they don't pay up, Netflix customers (who are also Verizon customers) will get frustrated and cancel their Netflix service. Of course, that threat is a lot more powerful because most customers don't have many alternatives to Verizon service.

And yes, I know that some big broadband defenders will immediately trot out the usual defense: that Verizon sold its network in a way that it never actually expected subscribers to use -- but it's difficult to see how that's everyone else's fault. If anything, it raises some questions about whether or not the FTC might want to step in and look at whether or not Verizon, AT&T and Comcast totally misrepresented what they were selling consumers.

As for the bullshit claim that Netflix is to blame because it sends Verizon more traffic and thus the "traffic ratios are unbalanced," well, Lee points out that this is actually Verizon's fault as well.

But this argument doesn't make sense. Verizon customers aren't just paying Verizon to send traffic to Netflix, they're also paying Verizon to deliver Netflix (and other) traffic to them. And there's no reason to think that carrying traffic from Netflix to Verizon customers is more expensive than carrying traffic in the other direction.

Indeed, there's a simple reason that Verizon's network receives more traffic than it transmits: that's how Verizon set it up. All of Verizon's standard FiOS packages provide dramatically more bandwidth for downloading than uploading. The entry-level service, for example, is 15 Mbps downstream and 5 Mbps upstream. The fastest package is even more lopsided: 500 Mbps downstream and 100 Mbps upstream. If Verizon builds a network that's optimized for downloading, it can't complain that its customers use it to download stuff.

And, of course, Verizon can squawk all it wants about this, but it's not going to change the fact that it's the problem here. Yes, Netflix delivers a lot of data. But if Verizon can't handle it, it shouldn't have sold it to consumers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>a dose of realityhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140605/17510527490Wed, 28 May 2014 08:55:28 PDTAccepting Amazon's DRM Makes It Impossible To Challenge Its MonopolyParker Higginshttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140527/11461627373/accepting-amazons-drm-makes-it-impossible-to-challenge-its-monopoly.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140527/11461627373/accepting-amazons-drm-makes-it-impossible-to-challenge-its-monopoly.shtml
Amazon was the target of some well-deserved criticism this past week for making the anti-customer move of suspending sales of books published by Hachette, reportedly as a hardball tactic in its ongoing negotiations over ebook revenue splits. In an excellent article, Mathew Ingram connects this with other recent bad behavior by Internet giants leveraging their monopolies. Others have made the connection between this move and a similar one in 2010, when Amazon pulled Macmillan books off its digital shelves.

That dispute took place a little over four years ago, and ended with Amazon giving in and issuing a statement that people found a bit strange. Here's a quote:

We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.

Monopoly, of course, is economically the correct term. Publishers of books that are restricted by copyright have a set of exclusive rights granted to them by law. Their monopoly looks distinct from Amazon's near-monopoly bookseller position, though, because it's one agreed to in public policy. In a sense it is also more absolute, and less vulnerable to challenge, because it's a legal monopoly, and not just a market monopoly.

To the extent Amazon has a monopoly on selling paper books, then, it could be challenged not just by legal action (such as antitrust investigation) but by other businesses competing. There would be some extreme logistical difficulties, and disparities created by economies of scale that might be impossible to overcome, but in principle other businesses are able to compete for Amazon's market position on physical books.

Copyright behaves differently: when it comes to Macmillan or Hachette's books, nobody may undercut prices by making production more efficient, or design prettier covers, or edit the text into a more compelling presentation. Where that's a good thing, it's because we've reached it by public policy. We've granted copyright holders an inviolable (if limited) legal monopoly because we as a society like the results.1

A very real danger, though, is if Amazon can take the challengeable market monopoly it has put together, and ratchet it into an unchallengeable legal monopoly. That is exactly what DRM does.

By putting DRM on its digital products—ebooks and audio books—Amazon gets the legal backing of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention restrictions on its products. This isn't for the advancement of public policy goals, either; Amazon gets to create the private law it wants to be enforced. Thanks to DRM, Kindle users are no longer free to take their business elsewhere—if you want a Kindle book, you must purchase it from Amazon.

Fortunately Kindle software can, for now, read other non-restricted formats. But the functionality is limited, and not guaranteed to stick around. And it's a one-way street: other software and hardware may not read ebooks in the Kindle format. Customers who amass a Kindle library will find no compatible non-Amazon reader. The fact that individual users can usually circumvent the DRM, too, doesn't help businesses trying to compete in that space.

Amazon has a lot of fans, and they tend to ascribe its rise as a bookseller for its aggressively pro-customer stance. If it drops that stance, even major fans would probably agree that it no longer deserves the throne. Unfortunately, DRM takes the conditional monopoly that customers like (you get to be the largest bookseller so long as you're good to your customers) and replaces it with an unconditional one (you once achieved monopoly and that is now permanent).

Last week's sketchy move against Hachette looks like a willingness to throw its customers under a bus in the name of better business deals. If publishers continue to insist on DRM, and if customers continue to allow it, we lose our ability to object.

Of course, that is only as true as copyright policy reflects the will of the public, which it doesn’t, but it’s something to aspire to.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>from-one-monopoly-to-anotherhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140527/11461627373Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:39:37 PSTWeather Channel To DirecTV: Meet Our Cost Demands Or EVERYONE WILL DIE!Timothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140114/08524125869/weather-channel-to-directv-meet-our-cost-demands-everyone-will-die.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140114/08524125869/weather-channel-to-directv-meet-our-cost-demands-everyone-will-die.shtml
In previous stories where a television channel goes to war with DirecTV and its peers, the mantra by the channel requesting a higher contract is typically the same: our entertainment provides value beyond what we're paid. That was the case when Viacom held its fans hostage in one such dispute, for instance, or when the far-more-sane AMC had a similar dispute. The point is that it always seems to come down to nothing more than money, where the dispute is over how much monetary value a channel has to a broadcaster. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not so, when it comes to the Weather Channel's dispute with DirecTV. Sure, they similarly want more money, but their response campaign to DirecTV bristling at the request while offering a different, televised weather channel is, shall we say, slightly more melodramatic and massively more aggressive.

Usually when cable channels and distributors go to war over money, the two sides warn customers that a blackout will be inconvenient. This time, the Weather Channel is saying it'll be downright dangerous. The channel has tried to rally the public's support by reminding people that it is an emergency lifeline during severe weather.

"The Weather Channel isn't just another TV network. It's a must-have resource that keeps families safe," proclaimed a headline on Weather.com.

Hmm, so the idea is that if DirecTV doesn't meet the Weather Channel's price demands, the weather monster is going to kill everyone? That'd be one hell of a provocative argument to make if it wasn't made, you know, at the damned website from which everyone can also get that life-saving information. The argument not only pretends that DirecTV isn't offering a different weather channel that would serve a similar function, or that there are various web-based methods for getting weather reports and alerts via computer and/or smartphone and mobile device, but it also ignores the Weather Channel's own services.

This irony doesn't appear to be lost on DirecTV.

DirecTV executives say that, contrary to the Weather Channel's positioning, there are many other sources for urgent weather news these days, including WeatherNation.

"When information is readily available everywhere, it's no longer necessary for people to have to pay a premium," York said in a telephone interview. He also asserted that the Weather Channel devotes up to 40 percent of its programming schedule to "reality TV shows."

I don't know what the actual outcome of this dispute will be, but it would appear the emotional argument that everyone is going to die without the Weather Channel on DirecTV is one that should and will fall flat on its face. Good try, though, guys.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>storming-out-of-your-contracthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140114/08524125869Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:52:50 PSTTuneCore Fires Last Remaining Founder, Gets Into Ridiculously Petty Fight With Jeff PriceMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/12151521828/tunecore-fires-last-remaining-founder-gets-into-ridiculously-petty-fight-with-jeff-price.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/12151521828/tunecore-fires-last-remaining-founder-gets-into-ridiculously-petty-fight-with-jeff-price.shtmlmake money than probably any other service out there, ever. It basically became the de facto standard for musicians who wanted to get their music into the various top digital music stores. TuneCore was founded by Jeff Price -- who is known for being opinionated and not afraid to share his opinion. This rubs some people the wrong way, but even when I've disagreed with Jeff, I've always found him to be completely genuine in his singular belief that the most important thing to him was to help artists as much as possible. Many people who have dealt with TuneCore over the years quickly realized that Jeff was the driving vision and heart behind the company. However, last summer, he was pushed out under questionable circumstances with no explanation from the company or its board (who has maintained a pretty uniform wall of silence).

Over the last few days, it seems that more has developed, which raises some serious questions about the priorities of TuneCore management and its board. What has become clear (and confirmed from multiple sources) is that TuneCore's lawyer from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, contacted Price to say that it was "investigating" whether or not he had "faked" a $500 invoice from a trip. Apparently, the invoice came from a bed and breakfast that Price stayed at because it was cheaper than a hotel, and where he paid cash, because the operator of the BnB offered a discount that way. TuneCore's lawyer is arguing that no legitimate lodging would send a Microsoft Word document as an invoice -- and thus, he must be faking it. One wonders just how much TuneCore is spending on its lawyers to "investigate" a single invoice for a $500 reimbursement.

The situation led TuneCore co-founder Peter Wells to send every shareholder at the company an email arguing that this was a ridiculous move, a waste of time and money and clearly just an attempt to embarrass or intimidate Jeff. It also raises serious questions about TuneCore's priorities at the moment. Is it about serving artists, or about attacking their founder and fired CEO Jeff Price? The full letter Peter sent is included at the bottom of this post, but this key line is the important one: "We at TuneCore ask artists to trust us with their music, their money and their relationships with iTunes and Amazon and more. How can we ask them to trust us if we act like this towards our own?"

As I was trying to learn more about the details behind all of this, the other shoe dropped. The third co-founder of the company, and the only remaining co-founder still employed by TuneCore was fired earlier today, with some believing it was some sort of retaliation for Peter's email to the shareholders, and as the company continues to try to maintain a wall of silence.

Jeff Price, too, is upset about this whole situation. He told me that his main concern is that this whole thing is a distraction for the company, and that he feels he has "an obligation to the artists to have TuneCore reach its potential." He also noted that the fact that the company is focusing on this is "heartbreaking" before going on to note:

The idiocy here is beyond me. It just makes me so sad. I get called out for being on a company business trip where I saved the company money. It's just so strange. I don't get it. Why is the company spending its money this way? What's the end game? How does this benefit the company? If they're capable of doing this to me, what are they doing for artists?

As for the supposed "faked" invoice, I've got an email from the woman who runs the bed and breakfast, explaining that she rents out her place via AirBnB, and that for "return guests" that they liked, they would often just deal in cash with invoices (which they report as income) and charge a slightly lower rate (I assume to save on the AirBnB fees). She confirms Jeff stayed and that while a Word doc is not very "formal" -- it is legitimate. Thus, it appears that this was, indeed, a case of Jeff saving TuneCore money.

Others -- including shareholders and customers of TuneCore -- are speaking out, and many are quite concerned about the direction of the company. Gian Caterine, who for years was TuneCore's CFO was incredulous about the accusations against Jeff and quite worried about the future of the company itself. Regarding the idea that Jeff might fudge a $500 bed and breakfast invoice, Gian found that to be "ridiculous."

Jeff is the "king of coach." He's such a frugal guy. Of all the criticisms you could have about Jeff, stealing $500 is not on that list. It's ridiculous.

But his much larger concern was what all of this meant for the company.

It looks like the company has lost its path. There's no one left at TuneCore that has any meaningful background in music. Jeff was always the spokesperson for musicians' values. There's no evidence that the company has any vision, and I can only see this leading to a loss of credibility among artists.... There's a big, big issue with vision and leadership now. They have not articulated a vision and there's no one with the necessary experience left to help.... I don't know if it's ignorance or arrogance, but the damage is pretty severe.

Rather than pointing fingers at Jeff, they need to get on with it. The whole situation leads me to believe that there's something really wrong that has nothing to do with Jeff.

Another shareholder, Joel Morowitz, who helped co-found Jeff's previous company, the indie label SpinArt, was similarly angry about the attack on Jeff and what it meant for TuneCore.

Personally, and as a shareholder, I am absolutely disgusted by these allegations against Jeff. It reeks of desperation and diversion. I have known Jeff for over 30 years, and while no person is perfect, I can personally attest to his high ethical standards, especially with regard to his tenure at Tunecore. More than anyone, you know how much time and effort he put into it. And now, after building Tunecore into the undisputed leader in the field, and quite literally, changing the model of the music industry, they now shout "lack of confidence" and "mismanagement"!? It just doesn't wash...and they know it. They have never been forthcoming about Jeff's termination.

He further pointed out that having a law firm investigate a $500 reimbursement is nothing more than "wasting valuable time and resources," questioning just how much the law firm was charging for such an investigation: "the sum of the bill is most likely far greater than the amount being disputed." Again, he is at a loss as to why there's this focus on attacking Jeff:

I am so saddened that this situation has devolved into a stalemate. Instead of focusing on the continued growth and diversification of Tunecore, they have chosen to turn this into a battle against Jeff. It is abundantly clear that whatever the real reasons are for Jeff's termination, Tunecore has been on the decline since his departure. Jeff was certainly not without controversy in the public eye, but no visionary CEO ever is. He was the clearly best person for the job. What do we have now?....a company with no vision, no direction, low morale, and most importantly, no effective leadership.

I've also been speaking to a few TuneCore's customers, who have expressed similar concerns. Andy Richards, who notes that he was TuneCore's 23rd customer way back in the beginning after randomly finding them online, notes that Jeff always struck him as "an extremely driven and passionate entrepreneur, but above all, a music fan who truly respected the artists with whom he worked." Furthermore, he notes that he's still on TuneCore, and hasn't seen any direct changes yet, but he's "definitely keeping an eye on things and will jump ship if I don't like what I see."

Disputes between startup management and investors is nothing new. We see it in the startup world all the time. Sometimes it does just make sense to bring in new management, but for companies built around driven and visionary CEOs, such changes can be quite problematic, especially when they leave a complete void where the vision used to be. The fact that TuneCore now seems focused on simplistic and petty disputes about a $500 reimbursement -- even to the point of accusing Jeff of having faked the invoice seems to raise serious questions about just what the company is focused on these days.

Over the past few days, I've reached out to every single board member at TuneCore, along with key remaining members of the management team. I've heard nothing from the board. However, just as I was about to go to press with this story, I heard from a PR person (he apparently leads the "crisis communications" team at his PR firm) who told me that he didn't think this was a matter that the press should be concerned with as it's a "private" issue. He then issued a further statement:

Tunecore focuses on its core business of helping artists reach their fans and consumers. It is expanding into Japan, Canada and on campuses, and has several exciting initiatives on the horizon which will increase its value to its artists/customers. The matter of the dispute is one more appropriately handled behind closed doors with the parties’ attorneys, and if necessary, in a courtroom. It is not for public consumption, nor does it have any bearing on its work toward its core mission.

The company offered no comment at all on Gary Burke being fired, saying there was nothing to say on the matter.

Again, disputes between management and investors are a common plotline in the startup world. But this one seems particularly messy, and unfortunate, given the large role that Price and his cofounders played in turning TuneCore into such a large player in the space.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>destroying-its-credibilityhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130130/12151521828Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:01:00 PSTYouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their ContractsTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/11470721663/youtube-stars-fighting-youtube-networks-over-their-contracts.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/11470721663/youtube-stars-fighting-youtube-networks-over-their-contracts.shtml"internet problems", it can move on to having actual entertainment issues. This means far more fun problems, like agents screwing young stars out of money, networks building contract language to screw young stars out of their artistic freedom, and lawyers threatening to enforce exclusive contracts to screw young stars out of their lives. Are you noticing a theme here? It's going to become increasingly important that formerly amateur YouTube stars read the contracts they sign with a growing number of upstart "YouTube Networks" very carefully, or else they are going to face situations such as we're seeing with Machinima stars, who are shutting down production because they're locked into lifetime and beyond contracts with the multi-channel network.

Vacas, known online as Braindeadly, has big brown eyes, a fauxhawk, a stubbly goatee and a British accent, discernible as he tells his 40,000 YouTube subscribers goodbye.

"I woke up today hoping to make a video, but I went into a call with Machinima this evening and they said that my contract is completely enforceable. I can't get out of it," Vacas tells the camera. "They said I am with them for the rest of my life — that I am with them forever. If I'm locked down to Machinima for the rest of my life and I've got no freedom, then I don't want to make videos anymore," he says quietly.

The screen fades to black.

Ominous, but not entirely unexpected. Those who make their bones on YouTube and any other new platform that might arise aren't going to have traditional avenues for making sure they know what they're signing. In the case of Vacas, he admits to this explicitly, later stating that he signed his Machinima contract quickly, not realizing they would own the rights to anything he produced on YouTube "in perpetuity, throughout the universe, in all forms of media now known or hereafter devised." Even death would not release Vacas of his contractual obligations. It sucks, but he signed it.

The point is that in these early days of YouTube channel capitalization, artists need to be very wary of sharks swimming in those waters. As the article points out, this isn't really new, it's just a different venue.

A recent string of high-profile disputes is prompting comparisons between YouTube networks and the exploitative Hollywood studios of the 1930s and '40s: Both convinced young and naive talent with little leverage to sign contracts that leave them at a disadvantage. For networks, that means contracts that bind creators to them indefinitely, demand rights to their content in perpetuity and take large ownership stakes in any resulting businesses.

As ugly as some of these contracts are, as are the intentions of those that wrote them, this should end up working itself out as YouTube matures as a primary entertainment platform. After all, Machinima can have all the dastardly contractual language it likes, but if the artists like Vacas refuse to produce in protest, what good does that do them? Eventually, a middle ground should and will be found. In the past, if you didn't like the contract offered to you by a major gatekeeper, you were pretty much out of luck. Today, however, not only are there more providers, but it's not difficult to "go it alone" if you choose such a path.

Millions of French netizens discover their YouTube streams sputter and die or never begin in the first place. Other video services, including TF1, are also struggling. The effect varies, sometimes randomly and sometimes by time of day. Respected consumer organization UFC-Que Choisir found between 20% and 50% of users surveyed online had problems.

Again, the existing connection remains and much of the traffic gets through. But Net traffic always grows and without regularly adding additional capacity many - not all - streams are blocked. French networks, with France Telecom in the lead, are refusing to accept growing traffic from Cogent, a major backbone carrier that services Google. They demand payment to accept all the streams their customers request. The independent French competition authority (Autorite de la concurrence) on September 20 approved the charging plan, leaving no doubt this is neutrality dispute.

The details suggest that this isn't so much a "neutrality" issue as a peering dispute. In fact, it actually sounds somewhat similar to the Level 3 / Comcast dispute from a few years back. In that case, Level 3 was providing service to Netflix, and Comcast worried about the big influx of traffic. Comcast (like France Telecom) demanded that Level 3 pay up for delivering it extra traffic. The bit that's interesting here is that French regulators got involved and said that this was legal in this case, though they're worried about the lack of transparency.

Of course all this does is show, yet again, how the internet's interconnectivity through peering arrangements is increasingly under pressure as certain broadband players become more powerful. And, unfortunately, the public (and their YouTube videos) may be at risk.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>more-peering-disputeshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130102/02113921537Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:33:00 PDTSuccess! Sita Sings the Blues Once Again Viewable on German YoutubeNina Paleyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/13155615154/success-sita-sings-blues-once-again-viewable-german-youtube.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/13155615154/success-sita-sings-blues-once-again-viewable-german-youtube.shtmlSita Sings the Blues movie is once again viewable in Deutschland:

I assume this is because last week I posted this video, complaining about why my 100% legal and painstakingly and expensively licensed movie was blocked in Germany:

Apparently many Germans are none too pleased with GEMA themselves, as indicated by interesting comments here. Some industry shills weighed in as well, but it looks like popular sentiment is against them. The story was shared widely, including in Der Spiegel and the New York Times online editions.

It's not clear how an American YouTube user is supposed to contest takedowns in Germany. When I was in Berlin recently, it was suggested I find a German lawyer to take some sort of action. At the very least, I would need someone in Germany to contest the takedown on my behalf. I imagine that would have been a slow and possibly expensive process. Then I thought of making this video. Although it took some work (writing a statement -- yes I know it's an imperfect statement, I did the best I could with the knowledge I had -- shooting the video, recording the audio via a separate mic, transferring files, editing, compressing, etc.), it was less work than managing an international legal process. And it got results fast! Better still, it contributed to ongoing debates about GEMA and Intellectual Pooperty in general.

My thanks to everyone who helped spread the word about this, and especially people in Germany who checked the Sita Sings the Blues URL and confirmed when the movie was blocked, and when it was unblocked.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>better-than-lawyershttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110718/13155615154Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:21:12 PDTWhy Sita Sings The Blues Is Perfectly Legal In Germany, But You Still Can't Watch It On YouTubeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/00141315084/why-sita-sings-blues-is-perfectly-legal-germany-you-still-cant-watch-it-youtube.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/00141315084/why-sita-sings-blues-is-perfectly-legal-germany-you-still-cant-watch-it-youtube.shtmlvideo she put up about how her movie, Sita Sings the Blues is blocked by YouTube in Germany, thanks to GEMA, the music collection society in Germany.

Since I know a little bit about the ongoing fight between GEMA and YouTube in Germany, I asked Nina if it was okay to do a post, discussing some of the details. We've written about GEMA a few times before, and last year, I went to Berlin and interviewed YouTube's Patrick Walker on stage at PopKomm/All2gethernow, specifically discussing YouTube's ongoing fight with GEMA. The details are a little different than what Nina suggests in the video, though she's absolutely correct that this is very much GEMA's fault. Even though Nina has a paid-in-full license with the various music companies that say displaying/performing her movie for free in Germany is entirely legal, GEMA has taken a ridiculous hardline stance with regards to YouTube. It believes that YouTube needs to pay it ridiculous sums of money for every video on the site that includes any GEMA-licensed music.

Other collection societies around the world have made agreements with YouTube, and worked out reasonable royalty rates for performances. Except GEMA. If I remember correctly, GEMA may be the only major remaining collection society which has not worked out a royalty rate with YouTube, and instead has been fighting a battle in German courts against YouTube. Because of that, and because of some clearly ridiculous court rulings, which suggest that YouTube (rather than its users) are liable for any infringement on the site, YouTube is blocking all videos that it comes across that include GEMA music.

Thus, I believe that the reason Sita Sings the Blues has been taken down is not, as Nina suggests, because of a direct takedown notice by GEMA (though, that's possible), but more likely because of YouTube needing to avoid liability from crazy German court rulings and GEMA's overinflated belief in what a "reasonable" royalty rate would be. Now, notice the key part here: the artist in this case wants the video to be online. Nina is pissed off that it's offline. She's paid quite a bit of money to the various music publishing entities to have the rights to show the movie worldwide, and the one blocking that is GEMA.

This is not an uncommon occurrence in Germany, unfortunately. Because of the way the laws work in Germany, those who have deals with GEMA effectively give up all of their own rights on such things. When I was in Germany, I spoke with multiple artists who were freaking out because they couldn't give away their own music, because GEMA didn't allow it. Aritst would show me their official webpage, without free music, and then their "secret, unofficial" web page with the music they wanted people to download. GEMA, which seems to be run by people entirely out of touch with how music works today, simply insists that no one can give away music for free... because then GEMA doesn't get to collect money. Furthermore, for those who try to get around GEMA and used alternative licenses, GEMA has been known to ignore such licenses, and insist that people still need to abide by GEMA's rules.

This is not a healthy situation. You basically have an out of touch bureaucracy that thinks it gets to set all the rules, even if they don't match the reality in the marketplace. Because of that, artists are suffering. And the fact that YouTube is blocking Sita..., despite it being fully licensed and perfectly legal in Germany, should really wake some people up to the fact that GEMA is not helping artists at all. It's stifling them massively.